Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
STATION
CSPAN 26
LANGUAGE
English 26
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)
. ♪ host: good morning, welcome to "washington journal." the fbi investigation that led to the resignation of general david petraeus has expanded to general john allen. the impact of all this on the intelligence community and national security will be part of several hearings on capitol hill later this week. lawmakers return to washington today amid a shake-up of the president obama national security team, facing the looming issue of the so-called fiscal cliff. that is where we want to begin today this morning. president obama will meet later on with labor leaders who are insisting that the president not compromise on cuts to medicare and social security. what is your take on this? avoiding this -- avoiding the fiscal cliff? host: remember, you can send us a clear message, post your comments on facebook, or send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org. courtesy of the newseum, washington, front page of that newspaper and many of the newspapers this morning, including "the washington post," liberal groups prepare for an entitlement fight. this is what zachary goldfarb rights. -- writes. host: ther
to the pentagon and the i.g. on the one hand and to the f.b.i. with regards to general petraeus. >> he's not -- big picture watching, he's not shaking his head saying, guys, we need a more credible, competent sense of leadership? >> he's not going to make grand pronouncements or decisions about things based on two situations, two individual cases. he's focused on the missions that the military is tasked with carrying out and the c.i.a. and the general intelligence community is tasked with carrying out and with enacting his overall agenda. which encompasses not just national security policy but obviously domestic polcy. -- policy. yes. >> jay, has the president spoken to general allen directly? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> secretary panetta? >> i'd have to check that. secretary panetta has been traveling. >> as sort after follow-up, does the president see this in general as an unwelcomed distraction at a time when he's just -- was re-elected and has a bunch of priorities in terms of the fiscal cliff and his cabinet? >> i certainly i think wouldn't call it welcome. obviously the -- a
. i don't want to comment on the specifics of the investigation. the f.b.i. has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed. i'm going to let director mueller and others examine those protocols and make some statements to the public generally. i do want to emphasize what i've said before. yen petraeus had an extraordinary career. he served this country with great distinction in iraq, in afghanistan, and as head of the c.i.a. by his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that he felt were necessary as the director of the c.i.a. with respect to this personal matter he's now dealing with with his family and with his wife. it's on that basis that he tendered his resignation and it's on that basis that i accepted it. but i want to emphasize that from my perspective at least, he has provided this country an extraordinary service. we are safer because of the work that dave petraeus has done and my main hope right now is that he and his family are able to move on and that this ends up being a single side note on what has otherwise been an extraordinary career. >> what about vote
and law enforcement, certainly the fbi to get the enormous amounts of fairly sensitive information about our private online activities, a lot of it without a court order. it looks like in this case it probably did get a warrant, but it also shows the incredible threat to them. we are talking about something that started as a cyber harassment investigation that led to the exposure of thousands of e-mails between broadwell and patreus over a period of years. we now have these archives of all of our communications, which compared to something like a wiretap can reveal vast more information. host: what is needed from a federal perspective to get access to the e-mails? guest: some courts have imposed tighter requirements. federal law says under certain circumstances it can be done with just a subpoena. they do not need to show probable cause of the search her home or tap your phone. only to certify that material that they are looking for is relevant. host: there is something called the electronic communications privacy act. guest: that is the 1986 federal law that provides the framework for c
of interests when the f.b.i. is investigating information that involves the director of the c.i.a., when you have an attorney general that has information that needs to go immediately to the commander-in-chief, to the president of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and if not, why not. and if so, and what is the president doing with this information because now he's saying he didn't get it until after the election. why so long? what are the problems here? why are the stories different? why are the stores told different from the evidence those people had in hair thands when -- hands when they told those stories the answers need to be found and there's clearly a conflict of interest. we do not need to return to the days of an f.b.i. director who investigates not to report to the commander in chief but to gather information so that he can get it and use it or provide toyota someone else who can use it to force people do what they want. so what happens when f.b.i. director who comes into office honorably with the best of intentions as it appears j. edgar hoover did, to battle org
was on "state of the union" this week, expressing concerns over when the fbi, the white house, and members of congress knew about the investigation. [video clip] >> i have questions about the whole matter. how to the fbi have been investigating it for this long? and if the general was involved, to me, if it was, the fbi director had the obligation to tell the head of the council at the earliest date. seems to have been going on for several months, but now it seems the fbi did not realize it until election day? it just does not add up, you have this kind of investigation, the fbi investigating emails, taking four months to find out that the cia director was involved? i have real questions about this. the time line has to be analyzed to see what happened. >> it looks like general petraeus will not be testifying this week at the hearings that we talked about on the september 11 incident in benghazi. here is the headline -- "lawmakers have questions." host: we are getting your fallout this morning from all the papers. this from christine -- host: like i said, we are getting your thoughts this
do not share outside the justice department, outside the f.b.i. the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. had we made the determination that a threat to national security existed, we would, of course, had made that known to the president and also to the appropriate members on the hill. but as we went through the investigation, looked at the facts and tried to examine them as they developed, we were very -- we felt e very secure in the knowledge that a national security threat did not exist that warranted the sharing of that information with the white house or the hill. but when we got to a point in the investigation and it was very late in the investigation after a very critical interview occurred on the friday before we made that disclosure, when we got to that point when we thought it was appropriate to share the information, we did so. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> after the a
zone. the other extreme is you can look at fbi statistics. you'll see that border areas have less murders. i do not want to get into definitional debate. we can talk about what spillover is. >> you commented. you work yourself as a sponsor for additional resources. i am grateful for you doing that. you brought us the general report. to say that it is improper to say that there is -- washington is in denial. to attack two of our nation's senior military professionals, like you did in the congressional hearing, and when they were merely giving their reflection of what is going on based on their decades of experience -- you are dead wrong. i want to follow up with that. here is why washington is in denial -- the president of the united states comes to the state and makes jokes about the safety and security of our country and joking about the border being safer than ever. we have had 140 dead bodies discovered in the last year alone on two rural texas counties. the statistics are great. no amount of statistics can cover up the bullet holes. >> you say they are not always accurate. wha
was concerned, we went through a timeline. we went through representatives, the cia, and the fbi, and i think when members were able to see the time line, the sense was still the same. you have a group of extremists who took it vantage of the situation, and we lost four american lives. there were representatives from al qaeda and other groups. you had individuals with the ability to shoot mortars, and i think it shows it was a terrorist attack of sophistication. whether these people gain expertise from being in benghazi or being out there and fighting from that process, that is one thing. we are still focusing on the people who did it. we need to bring them to justice and make sure how this event occurred. so we learn from this so the american people will be protected in the future. >> what is the status of the fbi investigation? >> investigation on what? >> no lead or no witnesses to talk to? >> i think we need to have them work with the intelligence committee to attempt to identify who coordinated the attacks, and i think this is an ongoing investigation trying to get the intelligence commu
that have to do with police, we have the fbi that is a national organization that has the resources to do things that the local to restrictions, whether state or local, do not have the resources to do. i believe it is possible to have a program for national disaster that is similar to what we do with police, fire, and disasters. we have a guide that was, in my opinion, the master of disaster, and for some reason they have ignored him for years. james lee witt, without question, the most effective person in the federal government during the clinton administration because he knew how to address disasters. all he is now is a paper pusher. that is basically it. guest: there is a lot of people but they there should be a greater federal role in disasters, but also a lot push back from others on the right, especially those that argue disaster relief should be more of a local responsibility, that more of the money should be returned to states that we use for disaster funding. there are a lot of instances where we see municipalities are overwhelmed. a lot of these places they rely on volunteer fir
have a standing army of armed bureaucrats and the t.s.a., c.i.a., f.b.i., fish and wildlife, corps of engineers, etc.,p citizens are protch guilty until proven innocent in the constitutional administrative corgets. government in a free society should have no authority to meddle into social activities or the economic transactions of individuals. nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. all things peaceful, even when controversial should be permitted. we must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity just as we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. but even in these areas government is starting to use a backdoor approach of political correctness to regulate speech, a very dangerous trend. since 9/11, monitoring speech on the internet is now a problem since warrants are no longer required. the proliferation of federal crimes. the constitution established four federal crimes. today the experts can't even agree on how many federal crimes are now on the books. they number into the thousands. no one person request comprehend the enormity
with paula brot we will. petraeus designed after an f.b.i. investigation uncovered an extramarital affair. then a forum with two med doll of honor recipients and the joint chiefs of staff retired general richard myers. several live events to tell you about tomorrow morning t. new america foundation hosts a discussion on how going over the fiscal cliff would effect the military, social security and medicare. that's on c-span2 at 9:00 eastern. at 10:00 eastern on c-span 3 looks at al qaeda groups in yemen. >> c-span invites middle and high school students to send a message to the president through a short video let the president know what's the most important issue he should consider in 2013 for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. it's open to students grades six through 12 and the deadline is january 18, 20 16789 if complete details and rules go online. >> i enjoy watching book tv and the rebroadcast of various news programs. it provides coverage of events without all the editing that you'd see in other programs and really gives me an opportunity to consume the news and information
in terms of how we are protecting our homeland. the fbi does have the law enforcement peace. those here this morning and know exactly why they have that. nsa, also known as cyber command, has the cyber command to drive the entire structure and the policies by which we are going to deploy various networks around the world. cia doesn't do that work but we can't do our work without collaborating am working with each of them. despite the fact that sometimes the matter what the news says, you do not do this alone. we do it with all our partners in the public and private sector. cia does partner with our agencies. we do, i heard a lot about for each of you, you talked about co-ops, internships, opportunities. the partner with these agencies to leverage our own employees and prospective employees to get the best match for the person. we are investing in the future and the future is you. at some point, i will find a beach somewhere but at some point, you will all be in my job. it is important for us to leverage our partners private and public to get the best officer recant for the challenges we
serious situation. there's a lot of concern about the fact that the f.b.i. didn't come back for three weeks. the reason is when they had to go back they needed protection. they needed to make sure that their lives were not at risk again. and we had to rely in the beginning with a very unorganized government and security group who was working with us and that was the libyans themselves. >> can you explain rice's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it s
organizations to freely operate on twitter is enabling the enemy. the f.b.i. and twitter must recognize sooner than later the social media has a tool for the outlaw terrorists, and it has to stop and that's just the way if is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, as the republican of georgia deals with its first democratic transition of power, i spent the last few days speaking at length with the president and the new prime minister about the necessity to continue the pursuit of the rule of law. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, this is a critical moment for the georgian people that can either put the country on a path of sustainable democracy or turn back the clock on the tremendous gains that have been made since the rose revolution. mr. speaker, the united states must remain engaged with the new government to promo
. >> was morell in there? >>he was not. >> [indiscernible] >>there was somebody from the fbi. i forget his name. thank you very much. >> next, senators brief reporters on the attack on libya. then marcia fudge and the criticism of suzanne rise. after that preston obama and congressional leaders talk about the fiscal of negotiations. -- fiscal cliff negotiations. tomorrow, marco rubio is a speaker at a fund-raiser for terry branstad. he has been mentioned as a potential republican presidential candidate in 2016. coverage of his remarks as 7:a 30 p.m. eastern on c-span. -- at 7:30 eastern on c-span. >> two days of nonfiction books, arthur panel's, interviews, and your calls, e-mails, and tweets. featured authors include reyna grande, joahn walsh, and christopher hitchens. live coverage saturday 10:00 eastern and sunday afternoon. >> david patraeus testified before a closed hearing on the investigation concerning the consulate attack. following the hearing committee members spoke to reporters. >> so far seven hours of hearings, we have spent the last two hours with former director patraeus. he lai
government. there'd be no embassy security new york f.b.i. agents, no food inspection, no federal prisons, no f.b.i., no head start, no aid to education. ms. moore: no fina, highway spending. mr. scott: no fema. nothing. ms. moore: except tax cuts. mr. scott: you would have to cut everything to fund tax cuts. if you extend the tax cuts without offsetting with over revenues you have to go into social security and medicare. that's why ewhen they talk about reduce the size of government that's why they can't tell you what they're going to cut. they can't cut that much. when they talk about cutting corporate loopholes, they can't tell you what they are because they don't add to that much. ms. moore: mr. scott, thanks for that background. i want to set the record straight. on the hike that the greant old party is leading us to believe, that number one extending tax cut the bush era tax cuts is not spending. it is exactly spending. and that is -- and the belief, the faulty belief that our, you know, our spending on safety net programs is driving our debt. social security does not drive the debt
reports that the fbi is reporting an investigation after hearing that a number of people heard letters from fannie mae that they were ineligible to vote. host: scott, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. i did not watch c-span until i came across one of your programs during this election and i have been stopped since. i cannot stand to watch fox or msnbc. c-span appears to be one of the only channels that gives a fair and proportionate opinion, a chance for both parties to say their peace. i appreciate the opportunity for me to give mine. thomas jefferson called the electoral college and outdated form. i believe that every vote should count. on the other hand, you would not want texas, california, or new york to determine what the whole country should move forward on. i believe that the electoral college is outdated. i am an independent voter. i voted for clinton back in the day, and i have voted for bush. i voted for obama last time. i am from ohio, but not everyone from ohio is in the unions. there are a lot people out of work here. i am really upset with the fact that mitt ro
trust in the fbi, cia, at home and security. i have complete trust within the confines of their agency walls. if you look at all of the botched terrorist plots that have been occurring since 9/11, it is absolutely amazing what our agencies are doing to keep us safe. who i do not trust is the white house suits who apparently put a spin on the nsa's official briefs and input on worldwide events. i believe the white house puts a political spin on everything that comes to the president, to the secretary of state. then to the american people. it was 9/11 when we had benghazi going down. that is a data i think the president would rather have nothing going down. apparently there was something going down. with petraeus, is it not ironic that he is now being the scrutinized over these extramarital affairs when he is about to testify in regards to what happened in benghazi. >>let's get a couple more comments on facebook and twitter. thank you for all of your calls. coming up next, congressman ron paul, a republican of texas set to retire. he will talk about that, the fiscal cliff, and the latest
the fbi were investigating american torture, rather than american love affairs. and this struck me with security contractors. we have had two months of heated controversy about benghazi and what happened. it was bad. four americans were killed. hundreds of security contractors were killed in iraq. i have written two books on iraq and i have never been able to figure out an exact number. the answer is no one cares and no one seems to care still. the official tally leaves out at least 57 incidents that we know about. the tally is quite suspect. this puts aside the foreign security contractors, south africans, costa ricans. there seems to be no tally of this at all and nobody cares. i have got to wonder how much of the mess in benghazi is simply fueled by fox news, poisoning the american bloodstream. it really bothers me. i compare that to the total carelessness about the deaths of security contractors in iraq. >> thomas ricks writes a blog on foreign policies website. ricks. foreignpolicy.com. he is the author of many books, including a new book called "the generals." let's hear from
judgment on the f.b.i. he also talked about issues like the fiscal cliff. here's the front page of the arizona republic. we get this courtesy of the new see yum. obama jumps back into the d.c. fray. patrick, rockville, maryland, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. what i have to say is projecting weakness and disorganization as a whole to the public will not help this country. people need to basically try to fix the country, in my opinion. and if something like benghazi happened, we should be able to find out what happened privately and take steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. that's all i have to say. host: gale joins us now from wisconsin on our republican line. hi. caller: hi, there. how are you this morning? host: where are you in wisconsin? caller: milwaukee area. i just wanted to make a comment that i certainly don't have any confidence in the security team. the reason i don't have confidence is if you're going to go out in front of public and just be a puppet and say everything that you're told to say, not speak the truth to the people like this ad
the work of the imdwration service. >> you were turning finger prints over to the f.b.i. >> we worked with ice and turned over people when they were arrested. that is the responsibility of the federal government. we can't put that on the towns anywhere in this country. >> you can have the last word on this topic. >> there are three or four different issues. the original question was about rhode island and the drain on the resources. i've looked at that and the drain on the resources is pretty minimal because the number of undock meanted here who utilize the resources this gentleman is talking about is small, only in the dozens. so i'm not going to worry about the drain in rhode island because the numbers don't bear that out. >> what do they contribute to the economy? >> a lot of them have jobs. just because their undock meanted doesn't mean they don't work. i have a good friend who i won't name who is self-plode. he employees several americans and makes well over 100,000 a year but i have no problem with that sort of thing. i have no problem with the idea just because you're undock me
to the u.n. and she reviewed much more than that. >> we need to do a lot more to e. we do not have the fbi interviews conducted -- conducted after the attacks. we do not have the basic information about what it is said the night of the attack that was shared with congress us of this date. i remember the john bolton episode well. our democratic friends felt he did not have the information needed to make informed decisions for john bolton to be an ambassador . the democrats would not consider the nomination until they got basic answers. all i can say is we are not close to getting the basic answer is. >> i have many more questions that can be answered. -- that cannot be answered. >> after her meeting with senators, you and ambassadors season rice released a statement that said -- while we wish we had had perfect information days after the terrorist attack, the intelligence assessment has inevolved. no one intended to mislead the american people. the administration of the congress and the american people as our assessments the vault. evolved. the senate majority whip said his talks continued
Search Results 0 to 25 of about 26 (some duplicates have been removed)